Think Progress has a piece indicating that East Chicago is “poised to become the next Flint.” The EPA says soil in the area has been contaminated with toxic levels of lead and arsenic since at least 2014. According to the piece, it’s more likely that this problem, or at least its origins, is more like 50 years old.
In 1920, U.S.S. Lead set up shop along the town’s central Calumet River and began churning lead dust, arsenic, and other chemicals into the atmosphere. Around the same time, Anaconda Lead Products opened a few blocks north of U.S.S. Lead and did the same.
In 1973, U.S.S. Lead began dismantling car batteries to recover lead parts. Discarded materials saturated the soil with battery acid. Anaconda Lead has a shorter legacy?—?after shutting down in 1936, the factory’s buildings were demolished and cleared, leaving only lead-rich soil in its wake.
Low income housing was then put in the area. In 1985, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management tested former Anaconda locations and found places with lead levels at 11,000 parts per million. The EPA’s maximum level is 400. In the early 90s, U.S.S. Lead declared bankruptcy. In 1992, the EPA proposed that the area be declared a Superfund site. No action was taken on this proposal until 2009.
It appears that the low income housing facility is now being shut down due to environmental contamination. The shutdown is related to a change in the CDC’s threshold for acceptable lead levels in children.
Occasionally, I feel compelled to take random shots at libertarians. This is one of those times. I think I’m hardest on them because I used to consider myself one. The philosophy is superficially alluring, and I think I’m angry that it doesn’t hold up in the real world. So, what’s the libertarian solution to this situation? For years, it appears, U.S.S. Lead was externalizing the costs of its activity — not necessarily because of anything malicious; just because that’s how business was done back then. Maybe we didn’t really even appreciate the danger. But, the fact remains that its commercial activity resulted in lead contamination — contamination that reduces the value of the real estate and impairs the health of the community. The contamination is a cost. But, because the company was able to impose that cost on unwitting members of the community and on future generations, it did not have to incorporate that cost into the price of its product. The company and its consumers enjoyed a windfall — essentially receiving a subsidy from the community and future generations.
Broadly speaking, I suppose some libertarians might consider that sort of contamination and involuntary subsidy a form of theft; a deprivation of liberty for the people who get sick. But, I think it’s more common for libertarian-minded people to rail against the EPA, regulations, and the heavy hand of government. What’s the solution here? Screw the future? Let people get sick and die?
As a practical matter, I think environmental concerns are a good example of why regulatory schemes are necessary. Safeguards that work well with more traditional property concerns (e.g. court proceedings for trespass) just don’t work that well with environmental situations where boundaries are more porous and damages are more insidious. (The corporate form is another issue at work here. Libertarians ought to hate the corporate form — it’s a government fiction designed to limit personal responsibility. But, mostly I don’t see libertarians speaking out on this issue. And, in this case, we see it at work — the individuals who profited from the transgressions of the lead company will be able to retain those profits while cleaning up the contamination and dealing with the health consequences will be someone else’s problem.)
Doug,
With all due respect, it’s a little disingenuous to ask where are the Libertarians on this issue. Have you approached any to ask? While there are some extremist in any party as you well know, an intellectually consistent Libertarian type would tell you that is a function of government to protect people from the harm of others, the debate is where and when does the harm occur and how much choice does an individual have in avoiding that harm. I oppose smoking bans in bars because consumers and workers can make a choice. A situation where people are drinking from water contaminated by someone else’s property or actions is a little different. Looking forward to engaging in the debate.
That’s not a solution. I know what the Libertarian position is generally because they’ve posted it. They want to abolish the EPA and apparently think that anyone injured should pursue these defunct companies and hold them accountable.
The guy who turned me on to libertarianism in college in the 90s was a very thoughtful guy, very devoted to the cause. But, he really struggled with how to apply libertarianism to the problem of pollution in the real world. Pollution does not respect property lines. Damage from pollution is often insidious and takes a long time to take root — long enough that the polluting companies can easily disappear before an injured party can seek damages. And, even if there are pockets available to pay the damages, the transaction costs of proving damages can be very high because the delay between cause and effect probably makes it so you need a technical expert to sustain your burden of proof in the case.
Because of these challenges, preventing the environmental contamination before it happens is a much better approach than waiting until after the damage is done to punish offenders. That means regulation by the government and limitations on property rights.
The Libertarian resource page listed above says, “private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources.” That sounds nice. But, obviously the owners of U.S.S. Lead did not have a vested interest in keeping their real estate clean. They could externalize costs by polluting and were thereby able to sell their product for greater profit. Owners presumably got to pocket the extra cash and buy houses somewhere that wasn’t contaminated with lead.
Every time I’ve talked to a Libertarian*, the solution is to file suit against the polluter.
This is, of course, after you’ve proven that the pollution was caused by them.
Also, you must prove to a court what your damages are. How much is a 20 IQ drop on my child worth? Can I prove that they were damaged by lead and not a genetic defect? What about a dead kid? How much do I get for that?
Finally, this all depends on the idea that the corporation still exists, actually has money, and so on. Even if you get rid of the legal fiction of a corporation, is the owner still alive? Do they have enough money to offset the damage?
*Note: The Libertarian party is the only political party I’ve ever been a card-carrying member of, when I was around 19. I let my membership expire when I realized they didn’t account for pollution, and started calling all taxation theft. If we can assume people will donate their taxes, then people are naturally good-natured enough that even police and military are not needed. We know better than that, though.
Wow, I had no idea us Libertarians had been running things over the past century or so. We’re the ones taken to task?
Well, anyhow, externalities. Yes, this is one place I do want regulation. Or, more accurately, a Pigouvian tax. If the industrial concern brings damage to the property of another, I do want the polluter held accountable. Government gets that part done in either the regulation or the tax, and has done it ably enough. But, what governments (the ones the Democrats and Republicans have crafted to-date) have failed at is delivering the compensation to those damaged. Fees collected from permittees has traditionally gone into the wrong place: the general fund.
So, pardon me if a Libertarian sees the EPA bringing regulations that make businesses less competitive WHILE failing to compensate those with a grievance. If such a person finds fault with the government on that basis, what? He’s an asshole who wants to see death? That’s garbage. Maybe, just maybe he wants to see efficiency, purpose, and meaningful outcomes.
More often, I think the individual is in denial about how pollution is caused, the damage it does, and the real world likelihood of his preferred ideological approach to address the situation. I’d be more sympathetic to the elimination of the EPA (for the reasons you suggest) if it was more often accompanied by a plausible solution, like you offer with the tax. Instead, calls to repeal the EPA are more often accompanied by happy nonsense about how private owners simply have a strong incentive to be good environmental stewards.
As for responsibility — no, libertarians aren’t responsible. Only the powerless are truly innocent, and libertarians get pretty close to that. They are, perhaps unfairly, my whipping boy for idiosyncratic reasons — mainly having to do with my having identified with the ideology for some years. I never felt any affinity for, say, the Green Party; and, so I just ignore them. The Republicans and Democrats don’t really stand for anything in particular, and so I always feel slightly silly critiquing them on ideological grounds.
How do we calculate the Pigouvian tax of a coal power plant?
Perhaps we can quantify the damage done through completely unfiltered pollution (sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide) that results in acid rain. Maybe. Distributing the money to the right people, which includes the government due to the amount of damage done to limestone buildings and monuments, plus national and state forests, will be even harder.
Even if we did that, the impossible task is dealing with things like CO2. In and of itself, it is pretty harmless.
You could make a case that all of the CO2 produced in Indiana is actually helpful to farmers in the short term, because their crops will use it for part of their fuel. Perhaps the farmers, and lawn owners, need to cut a check to the power company?
However, if a flood happens due to climate change, and farms are wiped out, how do we plan for that? How do we prove it was a flood that happened due to climate change and not just a 500 year flood?
Most importantly, the CO2 we pumped out in 2016 isn’t the issue that kills us. It is the CO2 we pumped out for the last 100 years, of which 2016 was small part. Do we penalize a new power plant for the sins of the old power plants?
Most companies and governments I know hard a REAL hard time predicting next year’s fiscal budget. I see no possible way to determine the monetary damage of pollution for 100 years into the future.
Somewhat related: “Libertarian Principles and Climate Change.”